High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
P.P.GOPINATHAN ACHARI v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 4805 of 1999  RD-KL 1570 (13 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 4805 of 1999()
1. P.P.GOPINATHAN ACHARI
1. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
O R D E R
K.R. UDAYABHANU,JCrl.M.C.No. 4805 OF 1999
Dated this the 13th day of November,2006
ORDERThe petitioner who is a retired Food Inspector has sought for getting the proceedings initiated against him by the court below under section 250 Cr.P.C quashed. It is submitted that he was the complainant in C.C.1113 of 1997, with respect to the offence punishable under section 7 (i) and (iii) and read with section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32 and 50(i) of PFA Rules. According to the petitioner he had demanded olive oil from the particular shop, purchased the same and sampled and sent for chemical analysis. On chemical analysis the sample was found to be wholly of ground nut oil and hence, evidently misbranded. The accused included the pharmasist, the proprietor of the shop, the distributor of the commodity as well as the manufacturer. The Court found that the item purchased is labeled as oli oil and manufactured as per the Drugs Licence validly issued. Hence, it was found that the prosecution was initiated under the PFA Act could not be sustained as the matter is covered by the Drugs and Cosmetics Crl.M.C.No. 4805 OF 1999 2 Act. It was found that after being fully aware of the above fact, he proceeded with the complaint. Hence, the court acquitted the accused. But M.C.36/99 was registered against the complainant under section 250 Cr.P.C.
2. The counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader were heard.
3. On a perusal of the judgment of the court below in C.C.1113 of 97, I find that the prosecution initiated against the Food Inspector is totally unwarranted. Section 250 Cr.P.C envisages an accusation without reasonable cause. In the instant case evidently the accused had manufactured the particular commodity and distributed and sold the same apparently as Olive oil whereas the content was fully ground nut oil. Of course, the complainant Food Inspector could have got the matter proceeded by the concerned authorities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and in which case the accused could have been found guilty and convicted or atleast the offence would have been sustainable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In the circumstances, I find that the action of the petitioner, Crl.M.C.No. 4805 OF 1999 3 Food Inspector , amounted to only a technical error in initiating the proceedings. It can, by no means, be held to be an accusation without reasonable cause. The counsel for the
petitioner has cited the decision in Radheshyam Vs. State ofKerala 1999(2) K.L.J. 110 in support. This court has held in the above cited case that an article satisfies the definition of 'Food' under section 2(v) of the PFA Act, it will not lose its character as 'Food', even if it is sold or used for some other purposes. Any way it was submitted that the judgment in C.C.1113/1997 was taken up in appeal and confirmed. In the circumstances I find that there is no justification for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner under section 250 Cr.P.C. Hence, the proceedings pending as M.C.36/99 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam is herewith quashed. The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.